WSP09117 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GJJ2JS 37 Finally on July 7, 1948, Judge Blunt apprgved the State Engineer's re- ports, rejecting the plaintiff's objections a~d made the i~terlocutory order a final judgment. It further outl in"ed. the duties of the State Engineer In the future In regard to determining lQsses of storage water, trans-mountain diversions and water in transit. A period of 90 days was granted for exceptions to the above judgment to be f1led by eIther side.. No exceptions were fi led and the case ended; establishing the rules for future water administration on the Arkansas River. HYDROGRAPH ANAL YS IS The stage hydrographs of dozens of TwIn lakes reservoir releases were studied from the 1966 - 1970 gaging station records at Granite, Salida, Canon City, Pueblo and Nepesta. Several of the better stage hydrographs were converted to f:1:ow.,hydrographs and studied in detai 1. An example of one of the better sets of these flow hydrographs is shown in'flgure V-I. Some of the problems of hydrograph analysis are apparent in Figure V-i, such as rain on the 27th and 28th, an unaccountable rise before the release at Canon City, an unaccountable. fall before the release at Granite, releases from the three reservoirs beglnnlng and ending at different times, diversion of Bessemer water upstream of the Pueblo gage, a rapidly falling river during the run, and so forth. A natural or base flow line was estimated and drawn for each of the flow hydrographs. If the base flow line was drawn correctly, accounting for rain and the like, the area above the base flow should represent the volume of the reservoir runs. There was no consistency betwee~ the volumes of reservoir runs and the reservoir run hydrograph. Almost half of the hydrographs showed more than what was actually released~. In other cases the hydrograph of the run.showed only 5D or 60 per cent of what was released. Another problem In the hydrograph analysis approach is that the releases are rarely.constant; for example, during the May 2, 1970 run~of 10 days dur- ation, the reservoIr release rate was changed every day. EVAPORAT I ON less than one per cent of the precipitation that falls on the Arkansas River basin in Colorado ever reaches the state line. Almost all of the water Is returned to the hydrologic cycle thwugh evapotr'arispiratioCl. The U. S. Geologic Survey (Geological Survey Pronessional Paper 272 D entitled "Evapor- ation from the 17 Western States") estimates that about 144,000 acre-feet of water are evaporated annually from rivers, Jakes, streams, 'ponds and canals in the.Arkansas RIver basin In Colorado, The same Professional Paper esti- mates that 14,655 acre-feet are evaporated from some 3,708 acres of principal streams and canals in the basin. This is an annual evaporation rate of about 48 inches. The U. S. Weather Bureau (USWB Technical Paper 371 estimates average annual lake evaporation for the basin at 60 inches at the Kansas line to 35 Inches near leadville.